minty, I appreciate your last post: this is one of those threads that I read but don’t post to, because I have a hard time figuring out exactly how both sides can have such convincing yet contradictory arguments. The fact that we haven’t ratified that part of the Convention is exactly the missing puzzle piece I was searching for.
A few related questions:
The treaty against torture to which you linked has a list of ratifications. The US made a comment during these, which I’m having trouble parsing. Can you explain it, or should I just go have another cup of coffee and hope that it’s comprehensible later in the morning?
There was a UN Declaration on Human Rights made awhile ago, right? Does this declaration have any force of law?
Given our ratification of the treaty against torture, is this treaty being used to protest the treatment of prisoners? If not, why not; and if so, how?
What jurisdiction does the eighth amendment hold in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo?
For cryin’ out loud, the spirit of the Geneva Conventions (and hardly just that) is that torturing people you have in custody is wrong. Do you really have any difficulty in realizing that? I do recognize that it’s more difficult than one might think to “reach agreement on what the spirit is”, and that is truly frightening. Or should be. Why isn’t it?
Does anyone in this thread, anyone, really think that the US has any less responsibility, or has engendered real-world consequences any less severe, or for that matter any Judgment Day consequences for those who believe in such things, for not having formally ratified every bit of a piece of paper? What the fuck does that really matter? There is no way for the world to enforce the GC’s, or bring any violators to account for it, other than in the way that country and its people are treated if they are taken, or in the way that country and its claim to moral leadership are treated. While there would be some sense of justice done to see Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales in the dock, it hardly matters if there are so many of us willing to condone what this administration has done. There will only be others to follow if that is the case.
Well, you can’t impeach Dubya for violating the Geneva Convention. That’s the frgging difference. The US’s failure to ratify the Protocol means that there is one less tool available in which to prevent mistreatment of “enemy combatants” by agents of the US government. It doesn’t change the moral argument, but it changes how you try to stop it.
And if you keep trying to use a tool that does not apply, you are just wasting time.
Ooh! I want to pick nits, too. Can’t you impeach Dubya for anything you want, without gainsay? If Congress wants to Impeach Dubya for having eighteen arms, they can do it, if I understand the process.
Of course, to pick the nitpicking, you were talking to Elvis, and he can’t impeach Dubya for anything, so technically you’re right.
Sure you can. You can impeach the President for anything you want to, without regard to the technical legality of the impeachment charge. Recent history shows that.
And who can use that tool? Compliance is essentially voluntary, based upon a government’s own interests
I think what Minty and the gang are saying is that, if you want the US government to have legal reason to totally espouse torture, we should ask Congress pretty-please to pass a law saying, “US citizens are not allowed to torture anyone under any circumstances, and no one is allowed to torture US citizens under any circumstances.” Make it part of the Bill of Rights. I was always under the impression that this was what “cruel and unusual punishments” was all about, but the brilliant legal minds of the US clearly do not see it this way. Maybe we should add a rider: "And if anyone does get tortured, the lawyers and/or legislators who sanction such activities shall be legally subject to the same tortures they advocate for their vicitms.
I’m all for it, because forcing Bushiviks to oppose such a law would give everyone a very clear idea of whom we’re dealing with, morally speaking. My only doubt is that the brilliant minds of the legal profession will not see this as banning torture, as we will see tortured definitions of the word ‘torture’ emerging from their mouths as surely as the sun emerges each day from the giant turtle shell that holds up the world. After all, look how studiously they have managed to ignore the clear meaning of the phrase “Congress shall make now law abridging the freedom of speech.”
The Nixon articles of impeachment were for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. The first is (coincidentally) a violation of the law, the second a political question, the third practically a requirement.
No thanks; every impeachment attempt in U.S. history involved an allegation of criminal behavior, and indeed the Constitution specifically requires such an allegation: “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It wasn’t merely made to make it “seem respectable” - it was done to make it comport with constitutional requirements.
Sure, impeachments are inherently political exercises, but an allegation of criminal misconduct is a required part of that political exercise.
That criminal-law gloss was put on it as part of the *political * effort to make it look respectable, sure, I already stated that. But, as I said, they did not have to. Care to address the fucking point?
I don’t know if that can be called “borking”. He’s not so much criticizing her judicial philosophy, but saying that she doesn’t have one. Her qualification to be on the SCOTUS is pretty questionable, and he’s questioning it. To bork usually means an all out assault, including character assasination. I don’t see that going on here.
Odd. For the righties insisting that judges not be “activist”, that they rule only on the law and the Constitution, that should be considered an endorsement.
